Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Documents Reveal Behind-the-Scenes Ebola Vaccine Issues
sciencehabit writes Extensive background documents from a meeting that took place today at the World Health Organization (WHO) have provided new details about exactly what it will take to test, produce, and bankroll Ebola vaccines, which could be a potential game changer in the epidemic. ScienceInsider obtained materials that vaccinemakers, governments, and WHO provided to the 100 or so participants at a meeting on 'access and financing' of Ebola vaccines. The documents put hard numbers on what until now have been somewhat fuzzy academic discussions. And they make clear to the attendees—who include representatives from governments, industry, philanthropies, and nongovernmental organizations—that although testing and production are moving forward at record speed, knotty issues remain.
And the ethics around live human trials are tricky, because some participants in the trial will die from ebola.
Which isn't surprising. If someone can think of alternative which delivers a better result, then I'm all ears. The framing of this as if the documents reveal some sort of 'scandal' is a bit troubling.
I keep seeing bits on google news about Ron Paul telling us how everything we are doing is wrong in this matter. I'm sure the world's most average Ob/Gyn - and most successful living American cult leader - is also a highly qualified expert on Ebola.
So, right. He should defer to the judgement of a highly trained law clerk
I'm sure the world's most average Ob/Gyn [Ron Paul] - and most successful living American cult leader - is also a highly qualified expert on Ebola.
That sounds suspiciously like an ad-hominem argument. "Most average" Ob/Gyn? What does that even mean, other than to convey dark undertones?
Shouldn't we be debating the things he says? Shouldn't we be considering the merits of his argument, rather than his background?
Obama's Ebola czar (Ron Klain) is a lawyer and former chief-of-staff. Do you think *he's* qualified to tell us what we're doing wrong?
What the heck are you getting at? What's your purpose in posting this? Is there some way in which you gain by posting such drivel?
You're right about being modded down - your post does nothing to inform the discussion.
That sounds suspiciously like an ad-hominem argument. "Most average" Ob/Gyn? What does that even mean, other than to convey dark undertones?
I am using that because his followers make a huge deal about the number of babies he has delivered. However considering how long he was a practicing Ob/Gyn, that number is actually not particularly impressive - particularly if he was the main or only practicing Ob for a moderately populated area.
Shouldn't we be considering the merits of his argument, rather than his background?
From what I have seen, so far all he has been saying is that we're doing it wrong. I haven't seen anything from him about how to do it right. Naturally, his followers jump all over it as gospel.
Obama's Ebola czar (Ron Klain) is a lawyer and former chief-of-staff. Do you think *he's* qualified to tell us what we're doing wrong?
The Ebola czar is supposed to help manage the response. Just as the Surgeon General does not perform surgeries while a member of the cabinet, the Ebola czar is just a manager.
What the heck are you getting at? What's your purpose in posting this?
My point is that there are a lot of people - including one particular cult leader / politician / retired physician - telling us that we're doing it wrong. I have not seen any of these people do anything other than bitch and moan about it being done wrong; I most certainly have not seen them propose anything other than what we are doing.
Hell any proposal for the government to do anything would be automatically rejected as "the wrong thing" by Ron Paul as he is against all forms of government spending, regardless of how many lives are at stake (excluding, of course, his own).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I really don't think debt should be transferable at all without consent of the debtor. I may take out a loan with a community bank reasoning that if I have trouble, they have a friendly reputation to maintain (let's face it, anyone can find themselves unable to pay a debt if bad things happen, no matter the intent). That doesn't mean I agreed to owe Snidely Whiplash and his robosigning minions money.
Let's apply a transitive test. I take out a loan after the bank examines every facet of my life for ability to pay. I then get a homeless man to accept my debt for a fifth of Jack. No problem, right? The bank will definitely not try to deny that the transfer happened and come after me, right?!?